Invoke a closure by reference with typed arguments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive/not-readonly/not-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context on top: confirm=true is mandatory, calls may have side effects, the write is idempotency=contextual-write, and caller-selected behavior executes in the live client. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the critical mutation warning and otherwise organized as dense semicolon-separated metadata where each clause carries a distinct fact. Slightly telegraphic, but no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, mandatory confirmation, prerequisites, result cardinality (up to 20 encoded results), the produced artifact (operation-receipt), and a verification path (assert-state). Nothing essential an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including types, defaults and the enum for argument kinds. The description's inline signature restates parameter names and optionality but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (Invoke) plus a precise resource (an arbitrary live function expression by reference), with the argument and result cardinality quantified. It is clearly distinguishable from generic execution tools like execute or run-luau, though it never explicitly names near-identical siblings such as call-closure or invoke-method.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the phase (act) and the preconditions (active-client, resolved-target, explicit-mutation-approval), which tells the agent when this tool is callable. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so the agent gets clear context but no routing guidance versus call-closure.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.